Benjamin Orr:MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."

So make it even more illegal than it currently is?

If only there were some way to, you know, enforce existing laws? Nah, that would be crazy. We should just keep repeating what we're doing and expecting a different outcome.

MrEricSir:Benjamin Orr: MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."

So make it even more illegal than it currently is?

If only there were some way to, you know, enforce existing laws? Nah, that would be crazy. We should just keep repeating what we're doing and expecting a different outcome.

If it turns out this was actually an illegal rifle the state of kalifornia will make sure to charge him with all those extra charges.

pedrop357:Real Women Drink Akvavit: Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA. Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.

I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.

In other words, they were too dedicated to fighting for rights instead of being pragmatic and helping convert rights into privileges? Good. It's why I'm a life member of the NRA and GOA.

The ACLU is actually more zealous about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments than the NRA is about the 2nd.

Should we have balance in the positions of groups that are anti-slavery? I mean the 13th isn't absolute, so surely we can have some slavery, just not full time forever slavery, right?

Speech is not designed to kill. Being protected against unreasonable search and seizure is not designed to injure or kill. The right to not incriminate yourself - which if you invoke, you pretty much are incriminating yourself in the eyes of many - is not designed to blast the crap outta everything you point it at. None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than absolute insanity.

Real Women Drink Akvavit:Speech is not designed to kill. Being protected against unreasonable search and seizure is not designed to injure or kill. The right to not incriminate yourself - which if you invoke, you pretty much are incriminating yourself in the eyes of many - is not designed to blast the crap outta everything you point it at. None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than absolute insanity.

Esparza said he did not know exactly what charges Benton could face, but noted that it is illegal to possess a fully automatic AK-47.

Well lets see Mr Police Spokesman, other than the possession of a fully automatic weapon without a tax stamp, how about: Attempted Murder, Destruction of Private Property, Unlawful Use of a Firearm, Assault and Battery, and at the very least Disorderly Conduct. Any of these charges ring a bell in your book? I am glad he's a only a spokesman and not the prosecutor, though considering how he talks about crimes I am certain he is not a good spokesman either!

wee:rich_mitch: When this sort of stuff happens happens in Oakland the reaction from SF is "OMG look at all the violent blacks in Oakland!!" When it happens in SF, the reaction is "OMG, we need federal gun control!" Just a pet peeve as an Oaklander.

I have a lot of friends in Oakland (and a couple good memories of the Jingletown Market). I also worked in the City for a while. So yes, this is true.

The last time I visited the Bay Area I stayed with friends in Oakland and I felt safer there than I did in San Francisco. Seemed like everywhere I went in SF was crawling with emergency vehicles. And I certainly encountered less panhandlers in Oakland than in Berkeley.

pedrop357:Real Women Drink Akvavit: Speech is not designed to kill. Being protected against unreasonable search and seizure is not designed to injure or kill. The right to not incriminate yourself - which if you invoke, you pretty much are incriminating yourself in the eyes of many - is not designed to blast the crap outta everything you point it at. None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than absolute insanity.

In other words, some rights are more equal than others.

No. That doesn't even make sense in this context. It's almost like you are implying "We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Driving a car makes me happy and gives me a greater amount of personal liberty, so everyone has the right to drive even if they are an idiot, unsafe and a danger to themselves and others" but with guns.

Insisting that we should maintain our current level of less controls on guns than we have over who can and cannot operate a car is just nuts. It also concerns me greatly that the ability to use common sense safety and pass a test about it in order to legally even obtain something designed to be deadly - like a gun - is enough to cause outrage among those who already have them. I kind of wonder if half the people I see at the range could even pass a test.

It is in our best interests, as people who enjoy shooting or hunting (or both) and who own guns, to make sure that only those who are competent may legally obtain them. YOU may be competent and concerned about losing your rights, but not everyone is competent. Those are the types we should be working on, not those of us who are competent and responsible. It will impact us, sure, but I'd rather do things I'm mostly doing anyway because I am competent and responsible - which is why I do them in the first place - than have the danger of those who are not standing next to me up at the firing range.

Adolf Oliver Nipples:Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?

What kind of whargarbl did I just read? It's farkin' LIBYA. Restricting our first amendment rights is not going to make them behave. The first amendment was not designed to kill, guns are. Is that really that difficult of a concept?

I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

Real Women Drink Akvavit:I do not subscribe to the "but it's a RIGHT, so everyone, everywhere, forever gets it" POV when it comes to the second amendment. That misguided POV about the second amendment applies just as much as those who are unsafe, irresponsible gun owners as it does to ex-felons or crazy people who want that right. In other words, it is not absolute (to use your term) because we do restrict that right for the better of the society as a whole. Trying to make it absolute is nothing more than ...

In the case of ex-felons and the mentally incompetent, they've actually had civil rights revoked. So these people have been adjudicated incapable of exercising those rights. It isn't a "restriction" of that right, it's removing individuals who aren't capable of functioning completely in society. That doesn't affect how absolute the 1st Amendment is, it affect the pool of people who have had their civil right revoked, and now these rights are privileges to be "awarded" over time or through proven capability.

Benjamin Orr:MrEricSir: RabidJade: Common sense is missing in this thread. The gun was illegally converted in a state where it was probably illegal to begin with in its original form (not "Californianized"). We need more laws to ban activity like this because the current laws, well, aren't lawfully enough or something.

Right, I mean when crimes occur, the reasonable thing to do is just sit back and let them keep happening. After all, when something doesn't work you should just keep doing it -- because that's "common sense."

stevarooni:That doesn't affect how absolute the 1st Amendment is, it affect the pool of people who have had their civil right revoked, and now these rights are privileges to be "awarded" over time or through proven capability.

"They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges." -- St. George, Who Looks Down On Us

Real Women Drink Akvavit:violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.

Actually, we do. I've seen too many dumbfarks up at the range that never should have been able to pass the HSC. That thing is too easy. Even our CCW testing here is easy.

Criminals will always get guns from other criminals. We can, and should, take steps to make sure that there are less weapons for them to steal and resell to their criminal buddies. The best way to do that is to make sure that we put hopelessly stupid or careless people in the same "no guns for you!" category that we try to keep crazy people.

Mandatory training classes, then mandatory testing should be beefed up and required for ANY firearm, with repeat tests every few years, just like we do for cars. Very strict fines and loss of the weapon if someone loans an unlicensed person their weapon, even if the borrower does not commit a crime. Prison time for the loaner if they do, equal to the same amount their criminal buddy has to do. Loss of weapons for storing them unsecured or in such a manner they are easily stolen. Must have a firearms license to purchase ammo. None of these things would bother me one bit. The only thing that would change for me is I'd have to show a license to get ammo, something I don't think any state requires right now.

In my wildest dreams people with a CCW are legally permitted to take weapons from idiots who obviously have no business with them and beat them with their own weapon. Might knock sense into them and I'd totally keep it if allowed. If nothing else, there'd be one less dumbfark with a gun.

/non-nutty gun nut

I appreciate and understand some of the sentiment, unsecured firearms and irresponsible people who by all definitions are completely unqualified to even handle a firearm are a huge problem. But 1, I wonder what of that would survive a court challenge, and 2 what if anything would be accomplished. I don't know if legislating common sense here makes any sense, if the unsafe situation isn't already apparent to the individual. Though funding some safe firearms training and perhaps even tax incentives for properly installed gun safes could be useful.

pedrop357:Real Women Drink Akvavit: Flappyhead: Well I hope you enjoyed your membership with the NRA. Wayne LaPierre will be along shortly to burn your card and scrape off your tattoo.

I ditched my NRA membership back in the 90's. They've been total nutjobs for a while now and getting progressively worse. I waited a bit longer than some to ditch 'em. I kept hoping they'd just go back to offering courses and rallying around the second amendment after finding some balance in their positions, but they didn't. They got so crazy I couldn't support them in good conscience.

In other words, they were too dedicated to fighting for rights instead of being pragmatic and helping convert rights into privileges? Good. It's why I'm a life member of the NRA and GOA.

The ACLU is actually more zealous about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments than the NRA is about the 2nd.

Should we have balance in the positions of groups that are anti-slavery? I mean the 13th isn't absolute, so surely we can have some slavery, just not full time forever slavery, right?

The gun he used is illegal to own in CA. Even if it was semi-auto, a gun legal to own in most other states, it would have still been illegal to own in CA. And if it's a semi-auto that he converted to full auto, he also violated Federal law by willfully violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- a crime that carries a max sentence of five years in Federal prison and a $250,000 fine -- as well as Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. It's very likely he violated the Gun Control Act of 1986.

So how about go be an ignorant trollish dickhead somewhere else?

Except that if the pro-gun people had their way, the gun WOULD have been legal to own. And he STILL would have STILL shot up his neighbor's house... and this guy would have been defended by you as a "responsible gun owner" all the way up to that moment.

That's the problem with the "responsible gun owner" argument: Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" - until they do something stupid, but by then it's a bit too late isn't it? It's a label that is applied to everyone and is only ever revoked posthumously.=Smidge=

Securitywyrm:I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

Smidge204:and this guy would have been defended by you as a "responsible gun owner" all the way up to that moment.

Why would I prejudge him in the absence of any knowledge about him aside from what he possessed at one time? By your logic, anyone who owns an AK is suspect. I don't know if you're going to embezzle from your company tomorrow, but I'm not going to call you a thief right now. The minute you commit a crime, though, of course I will. Until then I'll assume you're a law-abiding person like pretty much everyone else.

wee:Why would I prejudge him in the absence of any knowledge about him aside from what he possessed at one time? By your logic, anyone who owns an AK is suspect.

This would carry weight if the gun lobby supported things like background checks and physical/mental health checks as prerequisites to gun ownership. Hell, they even oppose efforts to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals.

Do you suppose it's socially responsible to make no effort whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of people who are prone to violence? I mean, hasn't the argument already been made in this very article that this guy was already a criminal since he owned a banned weapon? Maybe anyone who owns an AK in California should be suspect as not being a responsible person?

What I'm getting at here is that, instead of just assuming everyone is going to be forever a law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, we can make some kind of good-faith effort to determine the risk someone poses before arming them. I don't think it's unreasonable to deny access to guns from someone who is prone to violent outbursts, for example.=Smidge=

Adolf Oliver Nipples:Big Dave: This is basically the whole point of owning guns in this day and age.

How is the average gun owing husband supposed to sleep with his wife if he can't hold the threat of imminent death over her head? How is he supposed to get his teenage kids to take out the trash? Or, relate to a neighbor?

I don't really want to know the answer to this but - you guys do have the gun in your mouth while you jerk off, right?